MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived. A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code ~~~(~). How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM" All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. CURRENTLY: 13:20, 16 May 2024 (EDT) New Features Conker and Banjo At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feture things Not actually part of the Mario series (in the sence that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have Banjo and Conker games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts? Proposer: HyperToad Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00 Support HyperToad See comments above. Oppose Glitchman I don't really think Conker and Banjo have anything to do with the Marioverse, and these games were just cheap copies of the DK series. I don't think these should be added to the Wiki. Walkazo - They're too far removed. BLOC PARTIER. See my comment below. Ghost Jam - We've been over this many times before. Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with the Marioverse besides a far removed role. Cobold (talk · contribs) - For the nth time, they are not related enough. Time Questions Per previous proposal. And as an aside, why the heck would it matter that there is an "inappropriate" game? I don't remember the guidelines saying that everything has to be appropriate for children. In fact, that would go against one of the major principles of an encyclopedia. Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! A long time ago, before lots of users joined, Banjo and Conker articles were allowed. Seriously. There was a Tooty article, a Gruntilda one and others. However we soon stopped making them, and after talking about it cancelled everything and destroyed everything Banjo and Conker. So in the end I say: Not related to the Mario series enough. They were just guest appearances. Let's not make articles on the Itadaki Street series, or Final Fantasy or Sonic. Comments Actually, we had two proposal on this matter and infact, we used to have article on Banjo and Conker subject. The overal concensus was that Banjo and Conker only had very marginal link to the Marioverse (Not my opinion, thought) and that Conker was too scary for little kids. Just so you know. --Blitzwing 12:36, 10 January 2008 (EST) In all fairness, same for Donkey Kong. HyperToad Also, uh, what's the big deal about Conker, if we are worried about that, let's get rid of Bob Hoskins. :) Well, Mario made a cameo in DKC2 and the Donkey Kong Land instruction manual imply that Big Ape City may be where the original Donkey Kong took place. That, and a lot of DKC characters have been appearing in the sport games. About the Bob Hoskins stuff, I brought that up on the proposal, but no one listened. --Blitzwing 12:49, 10 January 2008 (EST) I listened, we should censor that page. Anyway, since Donkey Kong is a spin-off of Mario that'd make Banjo and Conker spin-spin-offs, which is a degree too removed from Mario. You could argue that Mario comes from Donkey Kong (the game) and is therefore the spin-off, but in the older proposals it was agreed that the game was more of a Mario game than a Donkey Kong game (except for its title). The opinion that Donkey Kong is the spin off is further supported by the fact that Donkey Kong Country (as the first of the bonefied Donkey Kong franchise) didn't show up until way after Mario was established as a franchise. - Walkazo I already did. - Glitchman (talk · contribs) Wait... shouldn't we be making our decisions based on continuity and connection of game universes rather than personal throughts on how far removed a character can be before his series isn't covered by our Wiki? That line of reasoning is a little close to conjecturally determining canon for me. Stumpers! 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST) Hey, Glitchman, Banjo-Kazooie was in fact an incredible game, and a completely new series made by Rare. However, we already tried adding both those series to this wiki. Everyone remember this summer? They were removed again in about a month. Plus, most of Conker's games are pretty... Innappropriate. I don't want to see that stuff around this wiki. BLOC PARTIER. Removals The Cheese article I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad. During February 2007, two users (Don't remmember who exactly) discussed how tasty cheese is, eventually, other users started putting like "CHESSE IS SO AWESOME! LOL." on their userpages. This eventually culminated in the creation of a mainspace article called "The Cheese Craze of '07", which was nothing more than a thinly veiled place for spam. The Cheese Craze of '07 was deleted and the Cheese fad started to die down, a few months after, this article was created. That's about it for the backstory. Now, why this article should be deleted?: First, the Importance of the item to the Marioverse is dubious: Let's see... it appear in Donkey Kong 64 as something you can climb on. Some places in Super Mario World and the Mario Kart have "Cheese" in their name. It's mentioned in the Paper Mario series and appear as one of the generic food item in the Super Smash Bros. Series. It's only claim to fame is that it might boost (The article write it like you can only see one if you expect a piece of cheese, but that's untrue) the chance of seeing a Gold Mouse in Luigi's Mansion, and I am not even sure it's true. An actually notable item called the Sacred Cylinder of Cheese play a major role in one of the Valiant comic story, but I don't think it help Cheese in any case. Look at the Toy Time Galaxy, it's the galaxy as a whole that is notable, we don't have an article on the individual toy-like surface that are in it, the same thing should apply to the Cylinder. Second, If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles: Let's take the Baozi-like meal found in Young Cricket story in WarioWare: Smooth Moves as an example. It play a major role in Young Cricket story since he's racing to grab some while they're still fresh. They also affect the gameplay, since they also act as a life counter. Lost all of them and it's game over. The Baozi's do everything the Cheese do and more, so why we don't have an article on it? Seriously: If we allow Cheese to have it's own article, we should also allow other generic items to have their articles such as Television, Bridge or the afro-mentioned baozi, why Cheese should have a priority over those other items? I hate when community stuff creep in the encyclopedia, this article is the perfect example of it. Proposer: Blitzwing 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST) Deadline: January 17th, 2008, 17:00 Delete it Blitzwing 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST) To make a long story short, this article only exist because of a short lived fad and it's importance in the Marioverse is rather dubious. XzelionETC Per Blitzwing Walkazo - Per Blitzwing. My Bloody Valentine - I'm so sick of that fad, as well! Its ridiculous! Per Blitzwing! Ghost Jam - Per Blitzwing.  Caps Lock LORD – Per Blitzwing. Keep it HyperToad As a Mariowiki, we should have articles on everything, maybe List of Real World Foods Appearing in the Mario Series? Glitchman (talk · contribs) That proposal wasn't long enough...:) Per HyperToad. Stumpers! Not to be tounge in cheek here, but I hate it when users let their prejudices for an article's past control whether or not it should be deleted. Sounds sort of like the arguement that we should delete video game stub articles to me. I really like HyperToads ideas, but I'd like to expand on that an propose a "List of Real World Subjects" instead. See my comments below... BLOC PARTIER. Hmmm... This decision was hard... But the Cheese does in fact have a role in gameplay. I think that the cheese in Luigi's Mansion is enough to keep the article. And yes, it's a stupid fad. Cobold (talk · contribs) - The Luigi's Mansion cheese should be there. Per InfectedShroom. Comments HyperToad: No, we don't have an article on everything. There is nothing special about Cheese, it's only a real world object that sometimes get referenced in the Marioverse, what make it more worthy of it's own article than other generic objects? Some guy here just thought it was tasty and started a fad around it. About your idea of making a list.... it could work, althought I think it would get pretty crowded. Blitzwing Although I agree about it's actual purpose, reworking the article is still an option. It appears in 2 games (at least) and the comics. Are we going to get rid off things that only appear in only one game or take out things that only appear in the comics. Honestly, notabilty arguements could go on forever. HyperToad Unlike Cheese, Wart and King Toadstool actually have some importance (Plus, you are wrong on both only appearing in a certain medium, Wart have appeared in a few comics and King Toadstool was mentioned in the instuction manual of the first Mario Bros.).The plot of SMB2 was about Wart invasion of the Subcon and he was the final boss of the game. A lot of the Valiant comic stories were centered on King Toadstool and his goofy atics. Wart and King Toadstool have revalance to the Marioverse, Cheese does not. The problem with Cheese isn't the article, it's that the subject is way too freaking minor, if it wasn't for that "Cheese Lover" fad, that page wouldn't exist. I remmember we used to have an article on "Snufit Ball", (The grey ball shot by the Snufit enemy in Super Mario 64... seriously, we had a page on that.) but it got deleted because the subject was too minor. Snufit Ball is exactly the same as Cheese, really, it's generic, very minor, and only have a marginal effect on the Gameplay (It hurt Mario), it just hadn't the luck of having a fad centered around it. Blitzwing Glitchman: What do you mean by "That proposal wasn't long enough."? If you mean that the opening thing is huge... well, I acknowledge I have difficulties abreviaitng my writting. But to make it short, Cheese as of now is too minor of a subject and we don't have "articles on everything" (See my comment.) Blitzwing Blitzy: Cheese does effect gameplay, as confirmed by guidebooks (Prima among others). Yeah, they're not official, but they still are sources that are superior to observations from an individual user, not to put you down or anything. Could you have simply turned on the lights in the room before the mouse appears? I've gone through runs of that game where I haven't seen any mice and others where they appear every time I enter particular rooms. All of this says to me that you'd want to put cheese as a subsection on the Gold Mouse page though, don't you think? To flat out delete the information would be crazy, plus, every edit that every user makes on a Wiki is influenced by his past, sometimes including gags and fads. So... to say that an article shouldn't exist because the user who created it was involved in a running gag that you happened to severely dislike seems very strange to me. Should an article I made about Minor Characters from the Movie be deleted because I happen to love the fact that everyone seems to hate the Mario movie? In other words, because I was interested in the movie because of the "running gag" of mocking the movie, and because I get into the mocking as well, should any edits I do on minor subjects from the movie be removed? But you'll notice that the article example I gave would be a list, right? I'm not advocating the cheese article to be its own necesarily, but that information should remain on the Wiki in some way, shape, or form. No, the types of platforms in Toy Time Galaxy should not have individual articles, but they should be mentioned in the Toy Time Galaxy article, yes? So, what I would do would be to make a list of Real World Subjects that have showed up in the Mario continuity (such as television, for example) and include Cheese in there... and include all of its cross-overs into the Mushroom World. The Real World is as important to the Mario series as someplace like the Land of Ice... actually, it's more important. You'll notice, however, that the Real World is still different from our own (in other worlds, there is no Blitzwing in the Mario interpretation, no?) and so I would say it's important that we note what does exist there, just as we talk about what exists in the Mushroom World. So, cheese should be mentioned, just like everything else from the Real World, right? I usually tend to diviate during my arguments, so please feel free to ask for clarification. But I am on your side that we're probably giving too much relavence to a topic that can be looked up somewhere else... like Wikipedia. Stumpers! 21:20, 10 January 2008 (EST) While the Prima guide is a superior source of information, it still is not official and can contain a lot of bogus info (see Kasplat and King Kut Out articles, among other), infact just search "Prima" in the search engine and you will find a lot of articles pointing out mistakes in the Prima Guide. I will pull out that example again: We had an article on Snufit Ball, the projectile thrown by the Snufit enemy in SM64, if we keep Cheese, we should also recreate Snufit Ball since they both affect the gameplay in very minor ways. The problem with the "It affect Gameplay!" reasoning is, that when you think about it, pretty much everything 'cept for the Mario Kart Sponsor affect gameplay. The bush and other objects you can shake in the Paper Mario series contain valuable items and you kinda interact with them. In the WarioWare series, you have to use a variety of object to get the task done... ect. While affecting the gameplay is a good argument, an article shouldn't be kept merely because it affect a very minor part of the game. About the list idea, while it could work, I think it would just end up as a gigantic list of "(Insert Generic item here) is a real-word object that sometimes appear in the Marioverse, it appear in (Insert Game Name here)" style entries without much info. About the "You only want to delete this because you hate that fad" thing, yes, I hate that fad and want to see it dissapear. However, even if a part of me hate the fad, I still think Cheese isn't worthy of it's own article, maybe as a mention in a list or something. The problem isn't that Cheese have a cult centered around it, it's that Cheese was only created because of it. Do I have to start a fad centered about Snufit Ball to recreate it? Geez. Blitzwing Splits & Merges Merge Classic NES Series Articles The other day I was reading through the list of stubs, and I noticed that all three Classic NES Series games, Donkey Kong, Dr. Mario, and Super Mario Bros. have their own articles and are all stubs. If we merge these articles, the series will be more organized, complete, and easier-to-read, plus you would not have to move from page to page to read them. Proposer: Glitchman Deadline:: January 11th, 2008, 20:00 Merge them Glitchman (talk · contribs) My Reasons above Kamicciolo, any changes or additions could just be noted in the main games page Ghost Jam Better to create an article on Classic NES Series and list all that apply. NMRodo Put it this way: These need to be here as much as the Bird articles. >_> Stumpers! Either this or make them sub-sections in their main game articles. Which do you think is best? ~ΜαριοθανικαλSame as anyone else Cobold (talk · contribs) - They may be different games, but all remakes, so we don't need to retell the story, controls etc., just state the differences from the original games, and they don't need have their own articles for just that. Walkazo - As long as the games are included in their parents articles too (see my comments below). InfectedShroom. Talk Per Walkazo. Absolutely everything she said. :P Orangeyoshi 20:28, 9 January 2008 (EST) Everything I said in the comments section, and what Walkazo said. Keep them separate GrodenE T C El True, but they're different games, which are more major then species and such. Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E - Per the mini and the 'Shroom Explosive Pants Modifier per all. — Stooben Rooben Leave 'em alone These should be part of the SMWikify PipeProject. It'd un-stubify them. Besides, they're separate games, so they should have separate articles. So, uhh...per all. HyperToad Per all Comments They may be different games from their originals, but aside from a few minor graphical improvements, they're complete and utter ports, nothing else. If we have articles on these, we may as well have articles on the Virtual Console versions of games. The same thing applies to all ports, like Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch). Instead of putting the Classic NES games into one article, we should merge them and all the other unneccesary ports with the articles for the original games. - Walkazo But we should have a page for the Classic NES Series, just because it was a big thing back in the ol' GBA days. Stumpers! 20:12, 5 January 2008 (EST) Actually, Stumpers has a point. Making sub-sections on the main game pages makes a lot of sense. My opposition to the total merging still stands, though... Sorry Glitchman! :( InfectedShroom. |Talk|Reviews| I agree with Stumpers. There doesn't need to be an article with information about each classic NES series game. After all, it's just the same game, but for GBA. They can just be put into the game's main article, but there should probably be an article for the classic NES series, that maybe lists all the games. -Orangeyoshi How about both? We can have a page about the Classic NES Series as a whole with the re-makes covered in each of their parent articles (the originals). - Walkazo Very good Idea. I say we do that. InfectedShroom. |Talk|Reviews| I agree with Walkazo's idea there. As such, which side do I choose for it? XP My Bloody Valentine Yeah, that's what I meant! What Walkazo said is what I was trying to say. -Orangeyoshi Shorter is better; my Chemistry teacher even takes off marks for long-winded answers! Anyway, for voting for both we should just vote to merge but make a note of it that we want both, like I did. - Walkazo I totally love Walkazo's idea. I was just thinking about it yesturday, yowza (small world, great minds... whatever)! ...so I keep my vote on the merge side, right? Stumpers! 22:45, 7 January 2008 (EST) Yep, but just make a note you want both. And InfectedShroom, just so you know I'm a girl. - Walkazo Ah. My bad. Lemme change that. :( mixed with :P InfectedShroom. Talk Much obliged. - Walkazo Split up the Quote Sections As I'm looking around the wiki, I see HUGE quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like Mario and Princess Peach). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter? Proposer: BLOC PARTIER. 22:29, 10 January 2008 (EST) Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00 Split The Quotes! BLOC PARTIER. My thoughts are above. Stumpers! Having them on the page detracts from the analysis, and the pages are getting way beyond that 32MB guideline or whatever it is. Keep Them Where They Are. Ghost Jam - Seems like a license for spam. Comments GhostJam, how so? Stumpers! 00:54, 11 January 2008 (EST) I think we used to have a page about a list of Quotes found in Super Mario 64 and it's remake, althought I can't find it now.... was it deleted? Blitzwing What's the point of this proposal? I mean, we just had a proposal regarding quotes, and we decided to remove those quote sections. Someone just would have to take action. Time Questions 10:00, 11 January 2008 (EST) Changes A Glitch Too Many Whenever I go to the List of Glitches page, I see a mess. With all those glitches out there, I feel like the page needs help. The only way I can see helping the page out is by weeding out all of the glitches that either: A) Can't be proven or B) Aren't notable. If a glitch meets one of these two requirements, then it would be okay to mention in the article. Remember, we all can claim to have experienced a glitch, but proof is the thing that we need to make sure if the glitch is true. After all, not listing glitches is better than putting down glitches we think happened. Proposer: Knife (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (EST) Deadline:: 14 January, 2008, 17:00 Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved Knife (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (EST) My reasons are given above. HyperToad Per Knife, I actually belive there is no reason for the page at all. Leave Glitches As They Are Walkazo - See my comment below. Glitchman - If there's even a chance of a glitch existing, I want to know about it. Per Walkazo. Stumpers! per Walkazo and Glitchman. InfectedShroom. Talk Per the man that is glitchy and the... azo that is... uh... Walk? :P But seriously, I love that page. Keep it the same. Comment How are we supposed to prove the glitches exist? Photos? Acknowledgement from Nintendo? Also, aren't we supposed to have everything we can possibly find about Mario on here? If we strip off the minor glitches we'd be defeating the purpose of Super Mario Wiki. However the page does need to be cleaned up, something that can easily be accomplished in ways other than scrapping a handfull of glitches (i.e. combine the two SMS walking-under-water glitches and scrap the "Requirements"). - Walkazo Generally blanket ideas like this look good in thoery, but you're looking at something as varied as glitches, and plus you have the problem of "notability" arguements. Maybe they're worth it for an article that could be featured, but an individual glitch? Plus, I don't want to see someone put hours of work into something just to have it removed. Stumpers! 19:19, 7 January 2008 (EST) If we only kept the most famous and notable glitches, such as Minus World and Fireless Bowser, the wiki's original purpose would have been replaced to be a video game dictionary instead of a fun and interesting place to learn cheats, gameplay, and of course, glitches. Many people (such as myself) rely on the Wiki to find all of the glitches they can. And like Walkazo said, how would you go about proving their existance? - Glitchman (talk · contribs) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (PT) Good point. I know I've found plenty of glitches on Animal Crossing: Wild World that I didn't take a photo of, even though I later joined an AC Wiki. Stumpers! 19:41, 7 January 2008 (EST) Hmm... I just looked at the page, and yes, it does need cleaning up. My comment still stands, however. InfectedShroom. Talk Just as an aside, and this isn't to be insulting, but why did we decide to do a list of glitches page instead of making it a list of links to glitches sections in the games? I didn't know how to phrase that to not sound insulting, so just know that I don't mean for it to be... Stumpers! 21:56, 7 January 2008 (EST) How is that insulting? Anyway, as it is now it's like a one-stop-shopping page for the glitches. Its easier for people to read about them all on one page than having to flit from one to another to another, etc. Also, if we did make it simply a list of links, sooner or later someone's bound to propose we make it a proper page again... - Walkazo Walkazo does have a point. - Glitchman Well... can we still put some major glitches on the game pages? It kinda seems like making articles about game modes, and then refering users to them, which is something that Steve allegedly said we shouldn't do. I dunno. The list of glitches is cool. Stumpers! 23:23, 8 January 2008 (EST) Yeah, definitely. The hard part's still deciding which glitches are major, though. Minus World definitely, and the Fireless Bowser, but it gets hard for things like Super Mario Sunshine where there are so many glitches. I personally think the "Blue Nowhere" (or whatever it's being called these days) and the Walking-Under-Water glitches are the biggies for that game (since they're the most well known and easiest to come across while gaming). - Walkazo Sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by major were those that effected gameplay. So, I would exclude visual glitches I think (unless we're talking about something such as a beta element sneaking in)... yeah, maybe that's too relative. Stumpers! 20:31, 9 January 2008 (EST) Miscellaneous None at the moment.